In Re : DMR June 15 2015 to US Department of Education, NY HESC, US SSA, and filed to American Express v DMR in NY State Supreme Court Suffolk County Index # 061458/2013 via Efile and thereby associated with NY State Supreme Manhattan Index # 100156/2011
{Reference this Document "DMRJune152015toDOENYHESCSSAFederalStateFinancial" to
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/DOEJune102015DMRosenblumAffirmationMay242015.php &
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/DMRJune152015toDOENYHESCSSAFederalStateFinancial.php }:
This web page contains images of my entire 50 page 1/ 21/2011 Daniel M Rosenblum Social Security # 089-46-3310 Appeal to the Appeals Council Office Of Disability Adjudication And Review, SSA Falls Church, Regarding an SSA 11/14/2011 Decision on Claim 089-46-3310 Valid 1/22/1997-4/8/2010
January 28, 2011
Sent from : Daniel M Rosenblum Social Security # 089-46-3310 PO Box 3377 Grand Central Station New York NY 10163
To : APPEALS COUNCIL OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW, SSA, 5107 Leesburg Pike FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041 - 3255
Prior to the images of all 50 pages, here is the text of the first five pages of my January 2011 to SSA, which five pages conclude with my Index of Sections of the full 50 pages:
1. Summary: Below is roughly 50 pages written to the Appeals Council at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review of the Social Security Administration, in appeal on a decision written by Judge Lucian Vecchio dated November 14 2011. The 11/14/11 decision pertains to Daniel M Rosenblum, Social Security # 089-46-3310. This instant 50 page appeal is written by me, the undersigned, Daniel M Rosenblum. Below I refer to myself variously as “DMR089-46-3310” or “I”, or “me” but to avoid confusion I attempt to refer to myself as DMR089463310 when discussing myself as I pertain to any Social Security claim or subject matter which pertains to a Social Security claim at the heart of this writing- a claim for Social Security Disability benefits with an inception date of 1/22/1997 which claim has a cessation date of 4/8/2010. Below I refer to such claim with the acronym ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”. One major component of the below appeal is the fact that I wrote a June 3 2010 SSA-789-U4 4 Disability Cessation Appeal which pertains to ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”, the SSA-789-U4 is not considered in the ALJ 11/14/2011 decision. Rather, the ALJ appears not to be aware of the June 3rd 2010 SSA-789-U4 appeal I wrote, and it appears the ALJ was unaware of the casefile of ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” specifically materials I filed with SSA 1997-2004. Please note this “summary” paragraph is writ solely as introduction to the below 110+ paragraphs broken into some 8 sections. Below, the 8 section headings also act as a summary for the 72 paragraphs. Please note that I received the ALJ 11/14/2011 decision on 11/28/201. The 11/14/2011 decision was mailed by ODAR on 11/21/2011, a copy of the envelope it was mailed in is enclosed. I am placing this appeal in the USPS mails, as Registered Mail, today 1/28/2012. I am doing so under the impression that placement of this appeal in the mails on 1/28/2012 as USPS Registered article comports with filing the same within 60 days of receipt. A Form HA-520-U5 is enclosed. However, please note that the contents of the 72 paragraphs in appeal of the ALJ decision, also constitute my “good reason” for not filing on time if this appeal is construed to be filed later than the 60 day time limit to appeal. Given the forgoing paragraphs subject matter, between 11/2011 and 2/2012 I faced eviction twice. Notwithstanding my JD/MBA I have been unable to get professional employment during such time period although the same was pursued vigorously. To avoid eviction I took a per diem no benefits job doing labor 12 hours a day with no days off in December 2011, therefore had little time to process this appeal. The temporary December employment ended 12/25/11, and did not provide sufficient funds to avoid imminent eviction. Therefore the beginning of January 2012 it was again necessary to search for employment vigorously, I started a new job driving a box truck Monday 1/23/11. I will not here dwell on this component which the 72 paragraphs below contemplate further. I will only note that I apologize that the below 72 paragraphs are not more succinct for the reader, and note that in certain instances this appeal may be incomplete giving the conditions under which it was written. And I note that the subject matter is very difficult for me to contemplate and write about, the materials I have evidencing the 72 parapraphs below is quite difficult for me to review as well. But I do have documentation to support my below writing, and believe the same is in my case file at SSA on ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”.
In further summary of the 72 paragraphs below, whereas the ALJ 11/14/11 decision does not consider ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” or my June 3 2010 SSA-789-U4 4 Disability Cessation Appeal, the ALJ focuses on a 4/27/10 SSA-561-U2 Request for Reconsideration which I was advised by SSA staff to file on that date as explained below in the 72 paragraphs. The 4/27/10 SSA-561-U2 pertains to a new Title II Claim which I was also advised to file by SSA staff during the time period in 2008-9 that I sought analysis of ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” given several instances of facing eviction. Below I refer to that new claim as ““NOT6/24/2009but11/13/2009InvalidExtraneousMootClaim”
The ALJ in decision 11/14/2011 refers to such new Title II Claim as being filed in June 2009, which is mistaken. Rather, it was filed in November 2009 when the sought after analysis of “DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” was not forthcoming, Rosenblum was advised to do so at 755 2nd Avenue SSA. Hereafter that Title II Claim is referred to below as ““NOT6/24/2009but11/13/2009InvalidExtraneousMootClaim”.
In further summary, note that below and variously throughout the existence of ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” since inception I have put forth that there is an element of fraud perpetrated upon me and the SSA by attorney Steve Frankel and psychiatrist Frank Miller. As explained below, it appears that my allegations of such fraud at the inception of the claim was received as evidence of a mental illness. This summary is only to introduce the subject matter, which is articulated in greater detail below and throughout the ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” case file at SSA materials filed 1997-2005 by DMR089463310. Note as well that given the effect of the fraud and related finding of mental illness, I have had to rely on SSD benefits at times throughout the course of ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”. For related reasons elaborated below, my SSA-789-U4 sought to reconcile the rationale for the claim cessation with the rationale for its inception. Given that my earlier pleas for analysis of the alleged fraud were received as evidence of my “mental illness” and the dire financial circumstances, my SSA-789-U4 also sought payment of benefits for the time period that ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” continued as a valid claim, my income was below SGA, and, and no benefits were paid to me. This is elaborated below, and in the filing I made to SSA during 2008 and 2009 when I was advised to file the “NOT6/24/2009but11/13/2009InvalidExtraneousMootClaim” as I sought appropriate analysis of the still valid ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”. There does not appear to me that there is a more appropriate governmental venue for analysis of the below subject matter.
Below, first I have listed the several Section Headings which describe the content of the paragraphs which are included in each section in Paragraphs 2-8. The Section Headings act as a continuation of this summary for the reader. All paragraphs are numbered, this Summary is numbered as paragraph 1, the table of sections as paragraph 2, and so forth.
Following the Table of Sections are Sections A and AA. Please note, importantly that Section AA states why I believe the Appeals Council should consider this appeal under 20 CFR § 416.1470. Further, Section AA contains notes on errors or misconceptions or misinformation in front of the ALJ. Further, and of very much importance in explanation of subject matter in front of the Appeals Council and ALJ is an explanation and chronology of simultaneous SSA-561-U2 and SSA-789-U4 and simultaneous claims BOTH ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” and ““NOT6/24/2009but11/13/2009InvalidExtraneousMootClaim” (these acronyms are explained in the acronym section below, and were referred to above.)
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
TABLE OF SECTIONS
Table of Sections (paragraphs 2-9):
1a. Two “SECTIONS” precede Section 1: Section A and Section AA.
SECTION A: ACRONYM SECTION (Paragraph 9)
SECTION AA (Paragraphs 10-41): JURISDICTION SECTION, ELIGIBILITY FOR APPEAL UNDER 20 CFR § 416.1470/ NOTES ON ALJ 11/14/11 DECISION AND EXPLANATION OF SIMULTANEOUS SSA-561-U2 AND SSA-789-U4 AND EXISTENCE OF BOTH ““DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” AND ““NOT6/24/2009but11/13/2009InvalidExtraneousMootClaim”
2. SECTION 1: (paragraphs 42-44) June 3 2010 Form 789 U4 received R Kaplan 6/7/10 at SSA 755 2nd Avenue NY NY 10017 with June 3 2010 SSA-789-U4 4 Page Typewritten Supplement ; Such Disability Cessation Appeal 789-U4 for D. Rosenblum, Social Security # 089-46-3310 was not considered in the November 14 2011 Decision written by ALJ Vecchio. The most important appeal for which ALJ decision was written by D. Rosenblum was the 789-U4 which is not addressed in the 11/14/11 decision. The decision was not mailed by ALJ Vecchio until 11/21/11, received by Rosenblum 11/28/11.( mailed by ODAR 11/21/2011, received by DMR089463310 on 11/28/2011. A copy of the ODAR envelope which carried the decision clearly stamped as mailed from zip code 10278 on November 21 2011 is attached as the last page of this filing. DMR089463310 was in constant contact with ODAR to determine when the decision would be writ and mailed during that time period, and was informed of delay in mailing due to the holidays.
3. SECTION 2 (paragraphs 44-45): Whether there is any element of fraud which pertains to “DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”. At the heart of the matters properly for consideration before ALJ Vecchio- that is, the matters such as whether the has been any change in DMR089463310’s mental condition during the course of “DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010” is the question as to whether there is any element of fraud which pertains to “DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”.
4. NEW SECTION 3 (paragraphs 45-55) April 5th 1999 Filings by Daniel Rosenblum to Social Security Administration by Daniel M Rosenblum
April 5th 1999 Filings: the foregoing paragraphs address my April 1999 Filings to the Social Security Administration and the instant appeal
5. SECTION4 (paragraphs 65-66): IN FURTHER CONTEMPLATION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF FRAUD IN “DMR089ValidClaim1/22/1997-4/8/2010”; THE STRENUOUS EVALUATION PROCESS FOR DISABILITY UNDER THE SSA STATUTE AS OUTLINED BY ALJ VECCHIO; ATTORNEY FRANKEL AND PSYCHIATRIST MILLER’S INVOLVEMENT IN FABRICATING DMR089463310 ADMISSION HISTORY AT PAYNE WHITNEY
6. SECTION 6 (paragraphs 67-69) : Some additional remarks regarding the citibank allegation of grand larceny; as noted in above in paragraph 94 and continuing, the disability evaluation erroneously utilizes the grand larceny allegation as ‘evidence’ of a delusional disorder and mental distress of Rosenblum. That is certainly not a fact which evidences anything. Rosenblum had always asserted the branch manager perjured in stating Rosenblum did not have permission to possess funds. After the Fraud by Miller/Frankel which concocted Rosenblum’s mental illness, Rosenblum’s allegation of the Miller/Frankel fraud and Citibank branch manager perjury were received as evidencing Rosenblum’s delusions and paranoia, and such allegations were never tested. Here are some additional considerations about the Citibank perjury:
7. Section 6 on Statutes of Limitations (paragraphs67-69)
8. Moving forward, what is sought by Claimant (paragraphs 70-72)
[END OF TABLE OF SECTIONS]
HERE IMAGES OF ALL 50 PAGES FOLLOW:
additional images and links to information regarding the above subject matter including 21st Century Digital, and, my New York NY hard copy and Suffolk NYSCEF filings in the matter of American Express v Daniel M Rosenblum are available via Dan's website at the filing web pages:
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/December032014SeriesI.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/ThursdayDecember51996.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSMay1996toMay2012.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/December_9_1996_Twenty_First_Century_Digital.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/MondayDecember9199621stCenturyDigitalestablished.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/amex.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/Amex09152013DocList.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/DMROriginalApril142011answer.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/April51999.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/Beach2000-2005.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TheLawTheBankAndTheBeach.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSDocket19961997.php
21st Century Digital ™ is both a common law and statutory trademark. Common law rights in the Mark inhere with the establishment of Sole Proprietorship Twenty First Century Digital by Proprietor Daniel M Rosenblum December 9th 1996 New York New York and continued use to date. Please see above and below for more information on common law trademark use and rights.
21st Century Digital® has four (4) USPTO Trademark Registrations:
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 4,007,885 Registered Aug. 9, 2011 USPTO International Class 35: Advertising and Business
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 4,051,315 Registered Nov. 8, 2011 USPTO International Class 36: Financial Services
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 4,051,315 Registered Nov. 8, 2011 USPTO International Class 38: Telecommunications
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 3,626,967 Registered May 26, 2009 USPTO International Class 42: Computer/Internet R & D
A patent application for a "21st Century Digital™ Network" was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 26, 2008 and published on October 1, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Publication Number US 2009/0248536 Al; USPTO Publication US 2009/0248536 Al is five (5) pages in entirety including the drawing of the invention and can be viewed on the USPTO website Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. No patent for a "21st Century Digital Network" product granted to date, nor is one pending. The status of the patent application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office is "abandoned" as of March 23rd, 2012, for applicant failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action Notice of Final Rejection September 9 2011. Applicant's most recent filing on USPTO patent application for a "21st Century Digital™ Network", USPTO Publication Number US 2009/0248536 Al, one hundred and fifty two pages regarding the 21st Century Digital Network product was filed July 2011 and is also viewable on the USPTO website Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Public Notice June 15, 2015 21st Century Digital ®